Forums

THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!! Topic

Posted by bistiza on 12/12/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):The system shouldn't allow the removal of all religious symbols and the like but rather EQUALITY among all of them.

This would fulfill the constitutional requirement of not establishing a national religion because everyone would get equal treatment.

That doesn't satisfy the atheists, though, because they don't want equal treatment. They want their beliefs to be supported by the government and they think they've found a way to make it happen.

I think I'm going to join a group to sue the government for endorsing atheism if they ban all religious symbols and practices on government property on the basis it is an endorsement of a system of beliefs (atheism) that is so similar to endorsing a religion that there is no way to discern a difference. Let the atheists have some of their own medicine when they're named in the suit too if I can encourage anyone to make it happen.

Your premise is flawed. Atheism is not a religion.

You have freedom to put whatever religious symbols or displays you want on your own private property. The government using taxpayer land to erect a religious display is endorsement of a certain religion. Leaving that space as just the park (or town square or whatever) that it was designed to be is not an endorsement of atheism.

Atheism is a system of beliefs, the same as any religion, and it must be treated the same way.

Atheism is not a religion. You're twisting the definition of religion in order to make this into an argument about semantics. Atheism is a non-belief. There is no god or gods at the center, no spirituality, no prayer, no rituals, no code of conduct, no sacred text, no common set of beliefs.

I'm assuming you don't believe in Buddha. That doesn't mean you are a member of some Buddhist-non-believer religion. It means you are not a Buddhist.

The government using taxpayer land to ban all religious displays is an endorsement of atheism, which clearly supports such a ban.

The government is not using the land to ban displays. The land is being used as a park/town square/etc. There are no religious displays at the golf driving range down the street. The golf course is not using the land to ban religious displays. It is using the land as a driving range.

I think it would be very difficult to prove my above assertion wrong in court.

No, it wouldn't.

The logical conclusion is that atheism must be treated the same as any other set of beliefs.

The government following the Constitution and not endorsing any religion is treating everyone the same.

Atheism is not a religion. You're twisting the definition of religion in order to make this into an argument about semantics.

It doesn't matter if it's a religion or not. That has nothing to do with it.

Atheism is a system of beliefs, the same as any religion. You can't say it's "exempt" from the law because it isn't a religion, so therefore the government can safely endorse a system of atheistic non-belief.

The government is not using the land to ban displays. The land is being used as a park/town square/etc.

Then the government should have no problem with such displays provided everyone has equal ability to display them.

Banning them all, on the other hand, supports those who would like to see them all banned as that is their belief system, and those are the atheists.

No, it wouldn't.

Yes, it would. I notice you don't even attempt it here, because you know it's logically correct. One belief system is the same as another, no matter what label you give it or how many times you claim it's "not a religion". Everyone's beliefs have to be protected equally. Atheism doesn't get to stand on a pedestal under the illogical principle it has no beliefs. It's no "exempt" from provision under the law. That would be unconstitutional.

The government following the Constitution and not endorsing any religion is treating everyone the same.

Yes, it is, as long as it isn't endorsing atheism by banning all displays of religious symbols and the like. When it starts doing that, it begins supporting atheism, and that's no more lawful than support of any other religion or system of beliefs. You just don't seem to get that, though.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2012 2:41:00 PM (view original):Perhaps the government would be better served by not worrying about decorating anything. Ever. Govern the ******* country. If I want a decorator, I'll hire one.

Benjamin Franklin addressing George Washington during the Constitutional Convention at a time when great division was being experienced concerning the issue of State's representation in the Federal government framework being hammered out at the time:

Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!

James Madison writing about the Constitutional Convention:

Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the [Constitutional] convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination? The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.

I know it falls on deaf ears to those who wish to believe what they want to, but clearly these men understood the importance of The Almighty for the success of their endeavors.

After the Constitution was ratified, Congress contemplated whether it should request the President to declare a national day of Thanksgiving to God. Atheists might tell us that the very suggestion was immediately shot down on the grounds that "the Constitution is a secular document!" The Annals of Congress for Sept 25, 1789 record these discussions:

Mr [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution.

Interestingly, on this very same day, Congress approved the final wording of the First Amendment.

The Congressional resolution was delivered to President Washington who heartily concurred with its request. On Oct 3, 1789, he issued the following proclamation:

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best".

Clearly these men felt that God should be far removed from any Government institution.

Benjamin Franklin addressing George Washington during the Constitutional Convention at a time when great division was being experienced concerning the issue of State's representation in the Federal government framework being hammered out at the time:

Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!

James Madison writing about the Constitutional Convention:

Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the [Constitutional] convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination? The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.

I know it falls on deaf ears to those who wish to believe what they want to, but clearly these men understood the importance of The Almighty for the success of their endeavors.

Yet they made the conscious decision to not impose a national religion.

It matters. The Constitution specifically bans the establishment of a state religion. The government is required to be secular by the Constitution.

Religion is a system of beliefs, which is why atheism is technically a religion, no matter how much they want to rid themselves of it. The government is require not to endorse or establish a state religion, and that includes not establishing atheism as a system of government belief.

Yet they made the conscious decision to not impose a national religion.

They did this because many of them left England and other countries to avoid being forced to believe the exact same thing as everyone else under a national religion.

Their intent was to protect their right to choose their own beliefs. Their intent WAS NOT to ban all religion from government. That was NEVER their intent, but extremist atheists are now convincing the courts it was. How far we've come from what the founding fathers intended.

It matters. The Constitution specifically bans the establishment of a state religion. The government is required to be secular by the Constitution.

Religion is a system of beliefs, which is why atheism is technically a religion, no matter how much they want to rid themselves of it. The government is require not to endorse or establish a state religion, and that includes not establishing atheism as a system of government belief.

Yet they made the conscious decision to not impose a national religion.

They did this because many of them left England and other countries to avoid being forced to believe the exact same thing as everyone else under a national religion.

Their intent was to protect their right to choose their own beliefs. Their intent WAS NOT to ban all religion from government. That was NEVER their intent, but extremist atheists are now convincing the courts it was. How far we've come from what the founding fathers intended.

It's unbelievable how delusional you are. Atheism is not technically a religion. There is no god(s) at the center, no prayer, no ritual, no meetings, no holy book, and no moral code.

Yes, all atheists share the belief that there is no god, but you and I also share the belief that there is no Santa Claus. That doesn't mean we are in a religion together.